| People v Bonner |
| 2020 NY Slip Op 02331 [182 AD3d 867] |
| April 23, 2020 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Jonathan Bonner, Appellant. |
Cliff Gordon, Monticello, for appellant.
David J. Clegg, District Attorney, Kingston (Joan Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Williams, J.),rendered January 20, 2017, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime ofsexual abuse in the first degree.
Defendant initially was indicted and charged with criminal sexual act in the firstdegree, unlawfully dealing with a child and endangering the welfare of a child (twocounts). Upon the People's request, the first count of the indictment was dismissed, anddefendant thereafter agreed to be prosecuted pursuant to a superior court informationcharging him with one count of sexual abuse in the first degree with the understandingthat County Court would impose a prison term of five years followed by 10 years ofpostrelease supervision. The plea agreement also required defendant to waive his right toappeal. Defendant pleaded guilty in conformity with the plea agreement and, followingan adjournment to clarify the sentence to be imposed, County Court sentenced defendantto the agreed-upon term of five years in prison followed by 10 years of postreleasesupervision. This appeal ensued.
Defendant initially contends that his waiver of the right to appeal was invalid. Wedisagree. The plea minutes reveal that defendant was aware that he was required to waivehis right to appeal as a condition of his plea agreement, and County Court, in turn,engaged in a detailed oral colloquy with defendant, during the course of which the courtclearly explained the separate and distinct nature of the appeal waiver. In response toCounty Court's inquiries, defendant indicated that he understood the nature of the appealwaiver and that he was willing to waive his appellate rights. Although defendant did notexecute the written appeal waiver that was presented to him during the plea colloquy,neither the absence of a written waiver of the right to appeal nor a defendant's failure tosign such a waiver is fatal where, as here, the oral waiver colloquy is sufficient todemonstrate that the defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his or herright to appeal (see People vThomas, 178 AD3d 1461, 1461 [2019]; People v Peryea, 169 AD3d 1120, 1120 [2019], lvdenied 33 NY3d 980 [2019]). As we are satisfied that defendant's appeal waiver isvalid, his challenge to the severity of the agreed-upon sentence, which is limited to theperiod of postrelease supervision imposed, is precluded (see generally People v Lawton,179 AD3d 1383, 1383 [2020]; People v Hough, 179 AD3d 1356, 1357 [2020]).
Lynch, J.P., Clark, Devine, Aarons and Pritzker, JJ., concur. Ordered that thejudgment is affirmed.